Judicial Imperialism
Sam Aurelius Milam III
I
recently saw an interview with Mariane Pearl.1
She's the widow of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter who was
kidnapped and then murdered recently in Pakistan. Although I'm sorry
for Mrs. Pearl's loss, I was disappointed at her ignorance. She was
asked what she thought of the recent indictment by a federal grand jury
in New Jersey of Islamic militant Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who is thought
to have been involved in the kidnapping. She replied, "Oh, yeah,
that was crucial. That was very, very crucial. The United States
has been great, you know, and has reacted very fast. It's very important
that they actually indict him because it allows, you know justice to proceed.
She
doesn't have a clue about what's really happening. Sadly, the same
level of ignorance appears to prevail throughout the general population.
Suppose
the U.S. government were to pass tax legislation requiring everybody in
the world to pay a 10% sales tax on each purchase. Aside from the
impossibility of enforcing such ludicrous legislation, it's obviously nonsensical.
Neither U.S. tax legislation nor the U.S. courts have any jurisdiction
over the sale of, say, tortillas in Brazil. Any nitwit can see that.
If it's so obvious with jurisdiction over taxes, then why isn't it equally
obvious with jurisdiction over kidnapping and murder? Neither U.S.
legislation nor the U.S. courts have any jurisdiction over kidnappings
and murders that occur in foreign lands. Such activities are beyond
the reach of U.S. authority. Neither U.S. legislation nor the U.S.
courts have any jurisdiction over Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. He isn't
a U.S. citizen and he wasn't present on U.S. soil when the crimes were
committed. Even if he is extradited to the USA, the U.S. government
still
won't have jurisdiction. The crimes weren't committed on U.S. soil.
They were committed in Pakistan. The best thing that the U.S. government
could do, if the suspect was extradited to the USA, is to extradite him
back to Pakistan, where he could be tried under applicable Pakistani legislation.
If
the U.S. government does manage to "legitimize" the outrageous practice
of enforcing domestic legislation in foreign lands, then the consequences
will be awesome. For example, what's to keep Saddam Hussein's government
from indicting George W. Bush for conspiracy to overthrow the government
of Iraq? What's to keep some Islamic regime from indicting Hillary
Clinton for appearing indecently dressed in public the next time she appears
without a burka? What's to keep the government of India from indicting
me next autumn, when I take my steers over to Grover's, to be converted
into steaks, ribs, and hamburger? Attempts to enforce such foreign
doctrine or legislation in the USA might seem ridiculous. They aren't
any more ridiculous than trying to enforce U.S. kidnapping or murder legislation
in Pakistan. That is exactly what is being attempted by the indictment
of Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. The most likely result of such U.S. judicial
imperialism, if it succeeds, will be judicial chaos, as other countries
follow suit.
|
|
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Monday, March 18, 2002 |
| Help me defend liberty.
Make and distribute extra copies of the Frontiersman. Publicize Pharos: http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/ Shop at Moonlight Sales: http://homepage.mac.com/moonlight_sales/Moonlight_Sales.html Send cash contributions (no checks, please) to Frontiersman, 479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236. Seek liberty in your own life. |
| frontiersman@ida.net | Frontiersman,
479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see Pharos at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/ |
April 2002
Page 1
|
